15 10. That the parties have informed about alleged new acts of harassment against Islena Rey, which occurred following the last Order of the Court in the instant case (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(a)(ii) and 11(a)(iii)), whereby the Court deems that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which justifies maintaining the provisional measures adopted in her behalf still persists. 11. That the State has the duty to plan and implement a protection plan in behalf of Islena Rey in conjunction with the beneficiary, preventing situations which might put her life and physical integrity at risk, and providing the necessary resources for the effective implementation of such plan. In this regard, it is essential that the State authorities and Islena Rey start a dialogue at coordination and negotiation meetings held in order to reconcile their differences and resolve the difficulties described above as to the implementation of the protection measures in behalf of said beneficiary (supra Considering clause No. 9). 12. That regarding the alleged irregularities in the use of the protection measures by Islena Rey (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(a)(v) and 10(a)(v)), the Court reiterates that it is the State which has the duty to implement the provisional measures ordered by the Court and that the Court does not set forth the duties of the beneficiaries of such measures. 13. That the parties have submitted no information regarding Sister Noemy Palencia, particularly as to whether she has returned to Meta Department (supra Having Seen clause No. 8(a)(viii)). In view of the foregoing, the parties must submit up-to-date information regarding the situation of said beneficiary. Furthermore, up to the moment the Court has received such information, it will deem that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in her behalf still persists. 14. That Mariela de Giraldo and her two daughters, Sara and Natalia Giraldo, have not accepted the protection offered by the State, and that the State has carried out an assessment of the degree of risk they face and has made recommendations regarding the safety thereof, and visits are made around their house (supra Having Seen clause 8(a)(viii)). In this regard, it is necessary that the parties inform the Court if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in their behalf still persists. Notwithstanding, up to the moment the Court has received the foregoing information, it will deem that such situation persists. 15. That it is not relevant to render judgment on “the professional survivor pension” granted to Mariela de Giraldo and her two daughters, Sara and Natalia Giraldo (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(a)(x) and 11(a)(v)), as, in accordance with the object of these provisional measures, it is not incumbent upon the Court to decide on this matter. 16. That regarding the duty to investigate the facts denounced which gave rise to the adoption of these provisional measures in order to identify those responsible for such acts and, where appropriate, punish them, the State has informed about the investigations started into the death of Pedro Malagón, Elda Milena Malagón, Josué Giraldo-Cardona, Humberto and Gonzalo Zárate-Triana, and Samuel Vacca (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(b)(i), 8(b)(ii), 8(b)(iii), 8(b)(iv), and 8(b)(vi)), into the threats and acts of harassment suffered by Islena Rey (supra Having Seen clause No. 8(b)(v), into the alleged torture suffered by Guillermo Parra and Efrén Ibánez (supra Having Seen clause No. 8(b)(vii)), and into the kidnapping of Alberto Barbosa-Torres (supra Having Seen clause No. 8(b)(viii)), as well as into the disciplinary investigation proceedings started against escort Luis Adolfo Cárdenas-